Chanda Kumari @ Munni Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.620 of 2014 In Matrimonial Reference No. 1229 of 2013 ====================================================== Chanda Kumari @ Munni Kumari, W/o Ranveer Kumar D/o Satya Narayan Paswan, Resident of village - Ambedkar Tola Murliganj, P.S. Murliganj, District - Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ranveer Kumar S/o Ram Autar Paswan, Resident of village - Ambedkar Nagar, P.S. - Balia, District - Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7.

20-01-2017 Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Naresh Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on notice on behalf of opposite party no. 2/husband of the petitioner.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to direct for transferring the Matrimonial Case No. 1229 of 2013 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura. In this case, earlier by order dated 08-12-2014, while directing for issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2, this Court had directed for staying further proceeding in matrimonial case.

Patna High Court MJC No.620 of 2014 (7) dt.20-01-2017 2/2 On notice, the opposite party no. 2 has appeared through his counsel.

It was complained by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/husband that the petitioner herself has voluntarily left the place of her husband and opposite party no. 2, being husband, is interested to live with the petitioner and keep her, as wife, with full respect and dignity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the court that it would be difficult for the petitioner to regularly attend the proceeding in a court, which is far away from Madhepura.

However, considering the fact that husband has filed a case for restitution of conjugal right, it is evident that husband is interested to live with the petitioner and as such, I do not find any ground to interfere with the matter.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T